NIW Bearings
dismissedJUL172024_08B52032024-07-17 · appeal · Texas Service Center

This is an AAO appeal decision — a case denied once and appealed. It shows how the framework is applied; it is not the filing population.

The Petitioner planned to own and operate a tax consulting company providing tax planning, tax return preparation, and business incorporation services to individual and business clients.

Field: tax accounting/consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the evidence in the record does not establish the Petitioner's endeavor will result in broader implications to the industry, beyond the immediate benefits realized by his prospective clients”
“the business plan provides little explanation and objective basis of these projections”
“The letters primarily focus on the Petitioner's professional background as well as information and statistics concerning the consulting industry and entrepreneurialism in general, and do not provide insight into the broader implications of the Petitioner's business”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “the business plan provides little explanation and objective basis of these projections”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “The letters primarily focus on the Petitioner's professional background... and do not provide insight into the broader implications of the Petitioner's business”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “the expert opinion letter lacks relevance with respect to the national importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
  • Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
  • Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
2,501coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →

Notable

AAO noted the appeal failed to specifically identify Director's errors under 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(1)(v), which alone would warrant dismissal, but proceeded with de novo review anyway.

Authorities this decision leans on

From the doctrinal survivor set — 187 authority tests across 47 distinct authorities cleared the differential-lift gates. Only those appear here.

  • 8 C.F.R. 103.3
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
  • Flores v. Garland
  • Matter of Caron Int'l
  • Matter of D-R-
  • Matter of L-A-C-

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show the tax consulting endeavor's benefits extended beyond individual clients to broader national or field-wide impact; job/revenue projections were unsupported and even if accepted, insufficient in scale.

Transferable lesson

Support economic projections with objective evidence and explicitly connect specific projected scale/impact to national-level significance, not just client-level benefit or field importance generally.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · field_advancement

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer